TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 2136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould have cancelled a registered sale deed by relying upon a Full Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Yanalla Malleswari Vs. Ananthalu Sayamma, [ 2006 (10) TMI 517 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT ] held that once incumbents who have proceeded to execute the sale deed, have no authority to execute sale deed then rightful order has been passed and accordingly in the facts of the case, there is no occasion for this Court to take a different or contrary view as any interference would subscribe void transactions. Whether a sale deed registered under the Act, 1908 can be cancelled or set aside by registering authority or by any other authority invoking administrative powers, if the registration is questioned on the count of impersonation/fraud? - HELD THAT:- The Government Order dated 13.8.2013 confers unfettered and arbitrary powers upon the Registering Authority in violation of the express provisions of the Registration Act and such Government Order cannot be invoked to annul a document. The Government Order dated 13.8.2013 is not only arbitrary but is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. If this Court while undertaking the powers under Article 226 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State of U.P. and others (Misc. Bench No. 2562 of 2014), decided on 28.03.2014 and looking to the divergent views taken by two Division Benches matter requires consideration by a Larger Bench. The Division Bench under the order dated 22.05.2017 referred following questions for adjudication by Larger Bench:- (a). Whether after a sale deed has been registered, the Assistant Registrar has any authority of law to cancel the registered sale deed under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 even if allegation of impersonation/fraud are made? (b). Whether the allegations of fraud are essentially, an allegation of fact which need examination of oral or documentary evidence and can be adjudicated on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties before competent civil court? (c). Whether the judgment in the case of Raj Kumari (supra) or the judgment in the case of Radhey Shyam Arora (supra) lays down the correct law? On going through the Division Bench judgments in Raj Kumari (supra) and Radhey Shyam Arora (supra), we do not find any conflict in the conclusions arrived. In Raj Kumari (supra), a Division Bench while examining the issue that whether an administrative auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t this conclusion, we would have refused to examine merits of the questions referred. However, the other issues referred to us are having larger impact, therefore, it would be appropriate to answer the remaining questions. Precisely, the issue before us that whether a sale deed registered under the Act, 1908 can be cancelled or set aside by registering authority or by any other authority invoking administrative powers, if the registration is questioned on the count of impersonation/fraud? The question noticed above has been considered and dealt with threadbare by a Division Bench of this Court in Krishna Kumar Saxena and another Versus State of U.P. and 9 others, 2018 (127) ALR 466. In this case, the Assistant Inspector General (Registration/Stamp), Rampur by an order dated 18.10.2016 withdrew registration of a sale deed and annulled that on the count that the same was executed by fraud and misrepresentation. The Division Bench after examining all relevant provisions of the Act, 1908 and the law applicable held that in no case registration of sale deed could have been withdrawn and the sale deed could have been annulled by administrative fiat. The Division Bench also quashed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules 1960 which were framed in exercise of the power conferred under section 69 of the Act. It is in the light of the provision of the Rule 26(k)(i) that the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Registering Authority had the power to annul a document where fraud had been played by the parties. The said decision of Andhra Pradesh in Yanala Malleshwari (Supra) was explained by the Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand versus State of M.P and others 2016(10) SCC 761 holding that the Andhra Pradesh High Court was only called upon to consider whether a person can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed and whether the Registering Officer was bound to refuse registration when a cancellation deed was presented. The Supreme Court held that in view of the provisions of Rule 26(k)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules, which was expressly provided in the Rules applicable to that State, the registration of a document be annulled and labelled as fraudulent or nullity in law. No such Rules have been framed under Section 69 of the Registration Act in so far as the State of U.P is concerned. In the absence of any expre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le. The authority also extends to the Concurrent List except as provided in the Constitution itself or in any law passed by the Parliament. Similarly, Article 73 provides that the executive powers of the Union shall extend to matters with respect to which the Parliament has power to make laws and to the exercise of such rights, authority and jurisdiction as are exercisable by the Government of India by virtue of any treaty or any agreement. The proviso engrafted on Clause(1) further lays down that although with regard to the matters in the Concurrent List the executive authority shall be ordinarily left to be State it would be open to the Parliament to provide that in exceptional cases the executive power of the Union shall extend to these matters also. Neither of these articles contains any definition as to what the executive function is and what activities would legitimately come within its scope. They are concerned primarily with the distribution of the executive power between the Union on the one hand and the States on the other. The language of Article 162 clearly indicates that the powers of the State executive do extend to matters upon which the State Legislature is co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation Act did not confer quasi-judicial power on the Registering Authority. The Registering Officer was expected to reassure that the document to be registered was accompanied by supporting documents. The Supreme Court further held that it was only when a sale deed was cancelled by a competent court that a cancellation deed could be registered and that too after notice to the parties concerned. The aforesaid principle is also in consonance with Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act which states that it was only the Court which has the power to cancel an instrument where it is alleged that the written instrument is void or violable. In Shri Anil versus State of U.P and others in Writ No.24128 of 2016 decided on 11.5.2017, a Division Bench of this Court held that the Government Order dated 3.8.2013 could not be considered in reference to procedure provided under section 34 35 of the Act and that the said Government Order cannot confer a power upon the Registering Authority to cancel a deed which has already been registered. We are of the opinion that Sections 34 35 only contemplates an enquiry before registration of a document. The Act does not contemplate any enquiry after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xecuted on 27.08.2014 in favour of the petitioner-Smt. Kusum Lata. The property aforesaid was earlier sold to respondent no. 4 (Smt. Sheela Rai) under a sale deed dated 07.08.2014 executed by Sri Mahesh Chandra. Respondent no. 4 (Smt. Sheela Rai) on knowing about the subsequent sale under the registered sale deed dated 27.08.2014 made a complaint to the Inspector General of Registration, Mainpuri, accordingly, an inquiry was conducted wherein it was found that on 27.08.2014, Sri Mahesh Chandra had no right to execute the sale deed pertaining to the property being already sold under a registered sale deed dated 07.08.2014 to respondent no. 4 (Smt. Sheela Rai). It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was aware of sale deed dated 07.08.2014 executed by Sri Mahesh Chandra in favour of respondent no. 4 (Smt. Sheela Rai) as she preferred a civil suit bearing No. 39 of 2015 before a competent Civil Court to set aside the sale deed aforesaid. The filing of the suit with a prayer to cancel the sale deed dated 07.08.2014 is sufficient enough to arrive at the conclusion that on 27.08.2014, Sri Mahesh Chandra had no right to sell the property in question and to get the sale deed registe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
